First off you can leave Dravid and Tendulkar out of this discussion and stop implying that I have suggested that either of these two great players is crap. I was talking about Laxman - and more specifically your ridiculous contention that a player averaging 46 and with 17 centuries in 133 tests is "far greater" than one averaging 57 and with 30 centuries in 111 tests.

Second no doubt Laxman has done well in Australia, but one doesn't evaluate batsmen simply by highlighting their best performances and ignoring all the mediocre or poor ones. You take an overall view of what they have done in all sorts of conditions and against all sorts of opposition. Once you do that for Laxman you discover that he is not so special after all. And even if performing in Australia were the only criteria for greatness then Sanga would not be found wanting as he has ticked that box handsomely. As I have said the Australian players he actually played against voted him the most feared or most dangerous opposition batsman after he toured there.

"In 2009 he lost his old, faded India cap, when it was stolen from a ground. He was very, very upset about it. It was dear to him and he was extremely proud to wear it."

First off you can leave Dravid and Tendulkar out of this discussion and stop implying that I have suggested that either of these two great players is crap. I was talking about Laxman - and more specifically your ridiculous contention that a player averaging 46 and with 17 centuries in 133 tests is "far greater" than one averaging 57 and with 30 centuries in 111 tests.

Second no doubt Laxman has done well in Australia, but one doesn't evaluate batsmen simply by highlighting their best performances and ignoring all the mediocre or poor ones. You take an overall view of what they have done in all sorts of conditions and against all sorts of opposition. Once you do that for Laxman you discover that he is not so special after all. And even if performing in Australia were the only criteria for greatness then Sanga would not be found wanting as he has ticked that box handsomely. As I have said the Australian players he actually played against voted him the most feared or most dangerous opposition batsman after he toured there.

But you conveniently ignore Sangakkara's less than stellar stats in India, SA, and England. The guy has played 3 Tests in Australia, flopped miserably in the first, then did very well indeed in the other two. But if three tests is a good enough pool for you to proclaim his awesomeness in Australia, then surely 6,8 , and 9, in those three countries respectively with middling returns, is decent enough to knock him down a few pegs in the ATG pecking order. I don't see how that is fallacious, or dishonest reasoning.

And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

But you conveniently ignore Sangakkara's less than stellar stats in India, SA, and England. The guy has played 3 Tests in Australia, flopped miserably in the first, then did very well indeed in the other two. But if three tests is a good enough pool for you to proclaim his awesomeness in Australia, then surely 6,8 , and 9, in those three countries respectively with middling returns, is decent enough to knock him down a few pegs in the ATG pecking order. I don't see how that is fallacious, or dishonest reasoning.

Now what is the fair sample you are looking at? Can you educate us on that?

Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)

But you conveniently ignore Sangakkara's less than stellar stats in India, SA, and England. The guy has played 3 Tests in Australia, flopped miserably in the first, then did very well indeed in the other two. But if three tests is a good enough pool for you to proclaim his awesomeness in Australia, then surely 6,8 , and 9, in those three countries respectively with middling returns, is decent enough to knock him down a few pegs in the ATG pecking order. I don't see how that is fallacious, or dishonest reasoning.

You brought up Australia, and Laxman. I simply defended Sanga against your more absurd charges - and comprehensively demolished your arguments while I was at it. Now you seem to have given up on that line of attack - perhaps you should have wasted my time for a few more posts, for form's sake? - and opened up a new front.

But what is the point of my even responding, if you genuinely believe - after all, you've yet to withdraw the remark - that a good but nowhere near great player like Laxman is "far greater" than Sanga?

You brought up Australia, and Laxman. I simply defended Sanga against your more absurd charges - and comprehensively demolished your arguments while I was at it. Now you seem to have given up on that line of attack - perhaps you should have wasted my time for a few more posts, for form's sake? - and opened up a new front.

What are you, a kid playing Battleship? I believe I've made four posts in this thread, each one highlighting the guy's lack of runs in three countries that aren't exactly cricketing backwaters. Maybe I went off on a bit of a tangent, bringing the three Indians into the conversation, but that was an aside as to why a lot of sub continental batsmen aren't rated highly abroad.

The only person wasting your time is you. You strike me as the kind of guy who'd blame the world for his missus sneaking out on him when his incompetency in the sack obviously contributes a fair bit to the old woman's peccadilloes.

What are you, a kid playing Battleship? I believe I've made four posts in this thread, each one highlighting the guy's lack of runs in three countries that aren't exactly cricketing backwaters. Maybe I went off on a bit of a tangent, bringing the three Indians into the conversation, but that was an aside as to why a lot of sub continental batsmen aren't rated highly abroad.

The only person wasting your time is you. You strike me as the kind of guy who'd blame the world for his missus sneaking out on him when his incompetency in the sack obviously contributes a fair bit to the old woman's peccadilloes.

I'm amused by the analogy but you still haven't explained what it is that makes Laxman "far greater" than Sangakkara.